Topic: New investigations board & restrictions on posting personal information - page 2. (Read 18670 times)

Funny how all the rules around here seem to change when it effects staff directly. You need to ask permission from mommy and daddy to make certain types of posts now, only older accounts can ever do so, and posts that are deemed "acceptable" are widely open to selective interpretation. What could go wrong with that? Of course there is never any conflict of interest around here is there? Funny how the people who claim to be "anarcho-capitalist" the most are usually just budding totalitarians.

I like the step taken by Theymos.

It will prevent paranoid users from spraying negative trusts on their perceived enemies.
 

The link between whatever (say, a bitcointalk account) and his/her RL Facebook account is not public information.

Legally, his facebook account and any personal information contained therein is none of your business.



Good point.




You are suggesting this person is impersonating you, misusing your identity and should be banned? Or that all doxxing should be made against the rules and deleted? Or both?

The last part ( calling this person a bitch) is probably tolerated here.

May be he left bitcointalk?



Sure, why not?

Oh, does my signature cause this discussion? Until now, nobody asked me to change it. Moderation and Administration should be aware about the issue.

Does anybody ask me to remove my signature?

I appreciate if we clean this up.

---

EDIT:
There is ton of deleted post, I can upload it if someone needs to verify. How do you explain double standards by moderation? Another moderator was involved in opening thread spreading lies about me. In my case, moderation was clearly following double standards, in meta they could not do the same, in altcoin section they still did. Why do you support calling people bitches in their signature? Lets review this case to understand why and how moderation is involved here.

@theymos
I wrote you PM, you never replied. Mprep only answers that either I am dumb, trolling or complaining about my language skills:


There are maybe 2-3 PMs, the rest deleted, from ION thread


Best on all this, mprep and suchmoon never complained about doxxes and never wanted to check if someone is using my name, simple sms or a call would be a proof. But what happened in real? Maybe moderation can explain all the reasons of deleting my posts and keeping doxxes, calling people bitches, intimidation, spreading lies, starting giveaways in another altcoin then the xpy giveaway in ion thread without any permission (payout in btc ), harrasing bitcointalk members, ..... @theymos, why do you support it?

---

Who is responsible? Person posting, servers providing this information or the owner of the place where doxx happens?

In my case, it is currently about identity theft and is clearly forbidden by the law in the state of the accused person:
https://oag.ca.gov/idtheft

What if doxxing is used as identity theft for intimidation purpose, speaking in someone's name in harming its reputation and so on. How do you explain these actions backed up by moderation? Everybody involved clearly knows it is me but still using my name and still not banned.

You can't apply any rule on a forum where your staff does not follow any rules, not one! Whoe's fault is it?

BTW, moderation answers that if doxxing is by itself criminal act then authorities should be contacted. Why are all other posts removed, but not obvious identity theft+doxx+calling another real world people bitches. Please comment on this, you can find all links in my signature.

As moderation clearly does not see any reason to remove this other posts which do complain with suggested rule of the OP, I ask again in public, if this is allowed, what do you want to forbid ?:

obvious identity theft+doxx+connect another real world people (2nd doxx if you want to define, plus harrming its reputation) (in my case calling this person a bitch).

I see in this thread suchmoon, who still tries to play police in applying a rule and showing up as helpfull. Suchmoon knows about the doxx, not reporting on it, supporting it in all. Supporting it and posing here around about rules, come on , this is not serious, such people should be banned, especially because they play fool game with moderation and administration.

The public information trail can be falsified by posting the evidence elsewhere then claiming it belongs to someone else. Happens all the time in copyright instances.

The forum doesn't enforce 3rd party TOS, else we would not see the MSDN resellers day after day trying to make a quick buck on costs of Microsoft.
(I'm not saying you should use data gathered from facebook in doxes, but rather that the forum doesn't care whether or not gathering those data is against any TOS.)

It is against facebook's TOS to take a user's data without making it clear to the user that you are doing so. hence illegal

I think that publishing his Facebook info was still legal. All one needed to do was create a free Facebook account and they could've seen the exact same thing as MrTeal did, so I'd consider that public information.

Well one way to handle that would be to remove doxes posted without a public information trail.

+1. I think this discuss on Meta before posting personal info will eventually work out.





I agree.

Well must say this is a good step.
1. You cannot find a doxx on bitcointalk using search engines.
2. You cannot find it if you are not logged in.
3. You cannot just register an account to view it.

Would be great if it will be made better.



I believe the negative consequences win. Discussions can be done in private.




How? (He could refuse. He could use a shill.)

I will tomorrow.



The thing is that the Investigations board is really public, as all you need to do in order to access it is be around for two months, and make enough posts. In theory, this information could even be mirrored by the websites that pull content from here for ads. It is also possible that a new user might be asked to mail cash to "John Smith at 123 Main St." after this person has already been dox'ed, but would have no way of knowing this is a bad idea.

It is not so much that publishing a dox accomplishes a whole lot, but more the fact that the threat of a dox can potentially accomplish a lot. A good example of this is the master-p case, in which master-p was threatened with his dox being released if he did not refund all the money he stole from several people. master-p ended up refunding about 1/2 of what he stole and had his dox released.

If a dox is accurate (and the person is actually, and is released publicly (including being accessible via search engines), then it can make it more difficult for a scammer to engage in transactions that require his trust, make it more difficult for him to gain employment, and can potentially aid police in deciding to investigate a crime. A note on the last example -- say for example, someone steals a lot of money from someone, they get dox'ed, but no police report is filed, then this person turns around and scams someone on LBC, again gets dox'ed but this time a police report is filed; if the police question the scammer, who denies scamming anyone, then the decision to continue an investigation might hinge on if the police can find any evidence that this person has committed any similar crimes in the past.

On the other hand, if a dox is inaccurate and/or if the person is not actually a scammer, then all of the above could happen, but to an innocent person. For the most part, there will be no appeals process, and once information is published, it is published forever (even if it is published in the investigations section as it is setup now).

I am not sure if the potential negative consequences outweigh the benefits of allowing the publishing of dox's. I think a good compromise would be that anyone who publishes a dox should be forced to "show their work" in a sense that they should be able to prove that they got their information from public sources.

Another issue is the potential for illegal harassment of anyone who is dox'ed. I think the risk of this happening is there regardless of if dox's are available to only "members and up" or if they are searchable via google and other search engines.

There is a case that a full dox should be released, even information about friends and relatives. If someone wishes to sue someone, they will need to serve them, and friends/relatives can potentially be used for skip-tracing purposes. A similar argument can be used if someone wishes to attempt to collect on a debt via means that are legal under the FDCPA (or other local equivalent), which allows for a debt collector to contact relatives of a debtor for the purposes of determining the debtor's contact information. 

I agree with you, in my country it is forbidden to take personal data of people and expose the forum or anywhere without permission from the owner of the data.

- moral damage. when someone offends the honor of another person in social network or blog, messages, comments, responses or otherwise.

- Crimes against honor (Libel, Slander, Libel) when you hurt another's reputation. In such cases, the authors of the offense will be subject to both criminal consequences: serving sentence ( the victim compensation) of his act.


take personal data from people without their consent is a crime.
I think that expose personal data of anyone here in the forum without their consent is a crime.

How is the investigation authorized? What is the explanation for making personally identifying information of the target public?

You are essentially saying that if I suspect you of stealing my money I have the complete right to search and find and make public your personal information so anyone is the world is free to do whatever they please with that and that you are not entitled to any legal protection or rights.



It doesn't. Google is a search engine. You cannot find any personal information on Google that you can use for doxxing.




If the Facebook details were not removed, it wouldn't be legal. (I am not sure that, as it is, is perfectly legal.)

Exactly. I think it's important to back up how you're getting your information so that it's transparent for others looking to verify themselves, as well as for others to confirm that you didn't find this information illegally. A prime example of a quick, effective and legal dox was Jason Boyko's (the guy who ran PBMining) done by MrTeal. It would be nice to see more dox's done like that because I'm not so sure that some of the doxes here on BTCT are completely legal (and of course I know a few doxes are probably incorrect too).

You quoted the same line twice. Knowingly ?

How is a new section going to incentivize more doxing?

You could dox anyone, anywhere, for any reason until now. Now such dox will be moved to one section or removed ("if there are no remotely-plausible trade complaints"). Even under the most liberal interpretation of "trade complaints" there is no "new incentive".

Lol, this is stupid, If you think people wont use this new section as a weapon then you are out of your mind theymos, doxing used to be done when it was necessary, this new section gives people a new incentive, people will be doxing for fun. It will be very interesting to see who decides if a dox needs to be removed, im gonna go ahead and say that any dox of any DT member will most likely be deleted, im looking forward to seeing the dox of the hate squad being posted.

Its also impossible to verify that those details can be found publicly and that they're even correct which is a much larger issue. For example I could 'dox' Lauda by saying he/she is actually a sentient rabbit who lives at 123 Wartership Down and its public information or can be found with paid searches. How can anyone else verify that?

Exactly how is an investigation falling under any of those verbs? Unless you think that this places them *at risk of jail time* (I doubt that this is what was meant by that). There is also a fair amount of sources claiming that doxxing is legal. Generally, I'm pretty sure that this is not illegal around the globe.

No, it matters a lot.

---

Update: Fair point ndnh. Jurisdictions aren't my strong suite, but I'd say that if it were generally illegal that it would be disallowed on the forum.

I mean
Revealing “documents or personal information” about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk…. is illegal in my jurisdiction.


Where you find it is immaterial.

Why is this new announcement needed as of late 
There was an investigations section in scam accusation section all this time